Thank You

Error.

Back in the 1990s, when stocks only seemed to head higher, the Wharton professor's book Stocks for the Long Run became both a best seller and the quintessential investment advice of the age.

Siegel's advice lost a lot of credibility in subsequent years as retail investors, in the wake of a dot-com crash and a financial meltdown a few years later, began to view stocks as little more than a crap shoot.

But with the Dow Jones Industrial Average having more than doubled since its March 2009 low, and with cash and other fixed-income investments paying so little, the notion of stocks for the long run has caught fire again among retail investors, and for good reason.

The New York Times

A weekend article on the inside pages of the New York Times makes the case as well as Siegel could that stocks should be a centerpiece in any portfolio.

The piece makes two very good points. The first is that stocks, while trading currently near historic highs, are still far cheaper on a price-to-earnings basis than they were during recent times when stocks appeared dangerously bid up. The piece quotes Niall J. Gannon, executive director of wealth management at the Gannon Group at Morgan Stanley, who calculates that the dividends on S&P 500 stocks were $15.97 in 2000 and $31.25 in 2012. Earnings per share were $56 in 2000 and $101 in 2012. "In other words, two major measures of a stock's attractiveness have doubled in the last 12 years, but the index has not kept pace," the article says.

The second point is that historical research generally shows that stocks performed well in periods following critical moments when many thought it wise to dump stocks.

This is one article worth reading closely, in part because it makes the point that stocks are a timelessly good investment regardless of where we are in the stock-market cycle.

The Reformed Broker

The Times article stands very much in opposition to the madding crowd of analysts, mostly of the technical kind, who believe that stocks trade in definable ranges and that market timing is a must.

For example, an article on the Website of investment advisor Joshua Brown argues that there are five clear technical signs that the rally is on hold. Among them: Dividend-paying defensive stocks are currently leading the market, and the deterioration among momentum stocks as a group has accelerated.

And an article in Seeking Alpha, written by money manager Lawrence Fuller, argues that the past four years have been merely a "robust cyclical bull market" in a broader secular bear market that shows no signs of going away.

Seeking Alpha

"I don't question the public's gradual reluctance to participate in the stock market's slow creep higher over the past couple of years. I sympathize with it," Fuller writes. "I also don't view it as pent-up demand that will fuel the market higher over the next couple of years."

The Seeking Alpha story, unfortunately, isn't supported by the kind of quantitative analysis one might want to see. And aside from saying that investors "should be looking for a better risk/reward opportunity" than stocks, it didn't provide any recommendations. I can only wonder if Fuller will get the right timing on when it's wise to get back into the stock market. That's a complaint I have about many market pundits who warn about overbought stocks.

Josh Arnold, a young Internet-oriented trader, mostly relies on the analysis of other pros to make his case on behalf of the mega-bank.

"One analyst who is bullish on Citi shares is Guggenheim's Marty Mosby," Arnold writes, "forecasting 30% gains for Citi this year. His bullishness is predicated upon the company trading above tangible book value and the Federal Reserve finally allowing Citi to return capital to shareholders in a meaningful way. I agree wholeheartedly that once the …stress test results are released in a few weeks that Citi…will be allowed to begin returning capital to shareholders via larger dividends."

Arnold adds, "I think a dividend increase is very likely. This could be a major catalyst for Citi shares to trade over tangible book value, as Mosby points out."

Staples
(SPLS) is another stock that has outperformed the broader market is recent months. And despite its run, a piece on the Street Authority site makes a bullish case for shares of Staples, though with the twist of using long-dated call options instead of buying the shares outright.

Street Authority

"The $18 target is about 26% higher than current prices, but traders who use a capital-preserving, stock substitution strategy could make 60% on a move to that level," the article says.

It's also a noteworthy event when the New Yorker weighs in on a big stock. A piece by staffer James Surowiecki, one of the best business writers working today, makes a solid case for
AppleAAPL 1.7203586848223182%Apple Inc.U.S.: NasdaqUSD153.14
2.591.7203586848223182%
/Date(1506459600431-0500)/
Volume (Delayed 15m)
:
35320240AFTER HOURSUSD153.14
%
Volume (Delayed 15m)
:
1320615
P/E Ratio
17.402272727272727Market Cap
777625095279.627
Dividend Yield
1.6455530886770275% Rev. per Employee
1920430More quote details and news »AAPLinYour ValueYour ChangeShort position
(AAPL) despite all the negative press the stock has been getting in recent months.

The New Yorker

He writes that "shareholders are undoubtedly in for a bumpier ride than they're used to.

"Still, the company's fundamentals are simply too good to justify panic. Its cash hoard is bigger than the market cap of almost every company in the S&P 500. It makes the world's two best-selling phones. The U.S. market may be maturing, but it's still immensely lucrative and far from tapped out, and Apple is the market leader in both smartphones and tablets."

He adds, "Apple accounted for sixty-nine per cent of all profits in the world mobile-phone market. That doesn't sound like a company whose stock deserves to trade at a price-to-earnings ratio well below the market average."

While the story is well told, the piece, like many New Yorker efforts, lacks the rigorous stock analysis that serious investors seek. It might appear that Apple is a buy after reading the article, but much more reading is required to know for sure.